STATE OF U.P. Vs. SUNDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.08.1999, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, in Criminal Case No. 944 of 1997, whereby said court has acquitted accused/respondents Sunder Singh (s/o Chora Singh), Bahadur Singh, Roop Singh, Indra Singh, Jaspal Singh, Kundan Singh and Sunder Singh (s/o Prem Singh) from the charge of offences punishable under section 31, 35, 51 and 52 of Wild Life Protection Act, one punishable under section 26 of Forest Act and one punishable under section 25 of Arms Act. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that on 17.11.1997, at about 9:30 a.m., near Ravigram, seven accused/respondents were seen coming by the team of Forest Officials consisting of P.W. 1 Dhiresh Chandra Bist, P.W. 2 Trilok Singh, P.W. 3 Man Singh Rana, P.W. 4 Kashwi Lal Shah and some others. Suspecting accused/respondents were going for poaching in the forest, they were apprehended by the Forest Officials. The case of the Forest Officials is that accused/respondents admitted that they had killed one deer which they had roasted and eaten. It is also alleged that accused/respondents further admitted that they killed one musk deer. Form H2 was prepared by the Forest Official registering crime no. 3 of 1997 -98, and criminal complaint (Ex. A6) was presented before the court. It appears that certain recovery memos relating to recovery of license of gun, a skin of deer and cartridges were made by the Forest Officials.

(3.) AS far as prosecution under section 25 Arms Act is concerned, it is clear from the record of the trial court that there was no sanction obtained from the District Magistrate, and the prosecution sought conviction of the accused which could not have been done under law as such, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution under section 25 Arms Act cannot be maintained without there being any valid sanction from the District Magistrate under the Arms Act.